D&D 5E Why Has D&D, and 5e in Particular, Gone Down the Road of Ubiquitous Magic?

[Tony Vargas]

If you want to talk about hp inflation then you can not look past Unearthed Arcana for the beginning with the introduction of the Barbarian and Cavalier.

You could look at the 1e Bard, which had a lot of HD, things like that certainly hinted at it what was to come. But, across the board, nothing matches the 20 HD over 20 levels of every class in 3e along with CONs boosted by +6 items. That's the peak of PC hp inflation.

And of course the slow increase every edition of the negative hp point when your character died.

OK, I guess that does 'peak' with 5e. Then again, it's not really 'death at X negative hps,' exactly.

So really it is only 5e that has managed to reign in the pure number porn inflation that peaked in 4e.

It's already clear that hp inflation peaked in 3e. BAB in 3e was +20 over 20 levels, while in 4e it was +15 over 30 levels, so 3e's clearly peaking there, too. Skill ranks, likewise, 4e topped out at +20 at 30th, 3e at +23 at 'only' 20th. But, yeah, 'reigned in' understates it. 5e has reversed the big numbers that peaked in 3e and pendulum-swung to the other extreme, with only +4 over 20 levels, advancement is decidedly muted. It's all still relative, of course. Whether you''ve got a bad save in 3e that only increases by +3 while DCs increase by +9, or a bad save in 5e that doesn't increase at all while DCs increase by +4, it's not terribly different, you're still hosed.

 

[Shasarak]

You could look at the 1e Bard, which had a lot of HD, things like that certainly hinted at it what was to come. But, across the board, nothing matches the 20 HD over 20 levels of every class in 3e along with CONs boosted by +6 items. That's the peak of PC hp inflation.

Or maybe 30 HD over 30 levels is actually the peak of PC hp inflation. You know since 30 > 20.

OK, I guess that does 'peak' with 5e. Then again, it's not really 'death at X negative hps,' exactly.

Turns out that people dont like their characters to die. Who would have imagined?

It's already clear that hp inflation peaked in 3e. BAB in 3e was +20 over 20 levels, while in 4e it was +15 over 30 levels, so 3e's clearly peaking there, too. Skill ranks, likewise, 4e topped out at +20 at 30th, 3e at +23 at 'only' 20th. But, yeah, 'reigned in' understates it. 5e has reversed the big numbers that peaked in 3e and pendulum-swung to the other extreme, with only +4 over 20 levels, advancement is decidedly muted. It's all still relative, of course. Whether you''ve got a bad save in 3e that only increases by +3 while DCs increase by +9, or a bad save in 5e that doesn't increase at all while DCs increase by +4, it's not terribly different, you're still hosed.

I guess since BAB maxed out at +15 then all those Monsters with their defences in the 50s must have been safe from those pesky Adventurers with their puny +15 to hit since that is the only thing that affects your attack roll.

5e came around for a reason that was not because some one thought that the edition six years before had too high numbers.

 

[Ancalagon]

About the cleric "denying" healing... I think we are talking a situation where the cleric has limited healing magic in him (and there always is a limit) and choosing to distribute his healing "juice" wisely.

Say cleric has 150 points of healing to distribute/day.

Fight 1:
Fighter: I took 20 points of damage
Wizard: I took 5
Rogue: I took 15
Barbarian: I took 50
Cleric: dang, that was rough! Ok line up everyone. I only have 60 hp of healing left folks, be careful ok?

Fight 2:
Fighter: I took 16 points of damage
Wizard: I took 15 this time, sorry
Rogue: I wasn't hit at all ha!
Barbarian: I took 57, it was glorious!
Cleric....

DM: you can hear the orcs coming, better hurry up!

That crazy barbarian is sucking out all the healing of the party. You guys are saying the cleric is a jerk for deciding to limit healing the reckless player's PC to the max. But wouldn't he be a jerk to deny the other players' PCs healing because the reckless one needed all of it? If the cleric has massive amount of healing power, then it doesn't matter so much. But if healing resources are limited, I think healing less the one who's being reckless needlessly is *not* being a jerk.

P.S. of course, if one character took more damage because he was protecting the party from the big bad monster or guarding the rear whatever, that's not the same!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Or maybe 30 HD over 30 levels is actually the peak of PC hp inflation. You know since 30 > 20.

Sure, Epic level 3.5 characters could accumulate 30 HD.

[sblock="off topic math"]Though, even if we compare 20th level 3e PH1 to 30th level 4e PH1...

3.5: 20th level barbarian, 20d12 HD + 18 CON, 24 CON with a +6 item, 30 CON when raging: 216, 296 up to 376 hps, on average, with maxxed out CON and rolling all 12s, 500 hp ... before Raging for another 80)
4e: 30th level Fighter maxxed out CON: 219 hps, no rage available, but if a max-CHA Warlord were to use the Heart of the Titan daily on him he could gain 64 temp hps.

5e did rein things in compared to 3e: a 20th level max-CON barbarian only averages 236 hps, 340 rolling all 12s, and rage doesn't give him more... it just halves the damage he takes.

OTOH, minimum hps definitely 'peaked' in 4e. A 30th-level wizard with a 10 CON (you couldn't start with less than 8 CON, and gained 2 automatically over the first 21 levels) had 96 hps. Roll all 1's on your HD, and a minimum-CON wizard in 3e, or 2e, or 5e, gets 20 hps. [/sblock]

Turns out that people dont like their characters to die. Who would have imagined?

Heh. Though I suppose that may have come as a surprise to whoever had the bright idea of reducing 1st-level hps so dramatically. (There's somewhere you can hang your 'inflation peaked in 4e' hat: 1st-level hps definitely were higher in 4e than they are in 5e or are in any prior edition, for that matter, or PF, AFAIK.)

[sblock="off topic math"]

I guess since BAB maxed out at +15 then all those Monsters with their defences in the 50s must have been safe from those pesky Adventurers with their puny +15 to hit since that is the only thing that affects your attack roll.

+15 + STR + prof + weapon talent + Enhancement/Inherent + feats + power + Combat Advantage is a lot of bonuses. Not nearly +20 + STR (+ enhancement bonuses to STR) + size modifier + feats + Enhancement + Circumstance + Competence + Insight + Luck + Morale + Sacred/Profane + Epic... 3.x was just a lot more open-ended when it came to bonus types & stacking. It could get pretty crazy.

Plugging just insane absolutely maximized values into those would look something like:

+15 + 10 + 3 + 1 + 6 + 3 + 10 + 2 = +50 (but that's including an equally maxed-out Warlord blowing a daily to help you hit), so more like 40.

vs

+20 + 13 + 8 + 3 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 20 + 3 +4 +2 + 5 = +89, but that's including a True Strike item and scads of typically-silly high-level pre-buffing, so more like 50 on a regular basis.
Though, that doesn't count depriving your foe of DEX bonus to AC, or the possibility of stacking untyped bonuses...

Removing cheese brings that down a lot faster for the latter, though. More like 34 vs 43 [/sblock]

Not that 5e didn't (over?) react to the high numbers of the previous two editions, just that 4e had already pulled back from the crazy optimization-fueled excesses of 3e.

 

[Ancalagon]

To get back on the original topic, I've been thinking about this, comparing my "2nd ed" days to the 5e situation and wondering why it didn't quite feel as different as it should. And I think it's because of old-school multiclassing. It was *really* tempting to play, say, a mage-rogue instead of just a plain rogue. So even though there were no arcane trickster, you had a rather equivalent option. And in our last 2nd ed campaign, the fighter mage was blasting *way* more than an eldrich knight would have... The 3rd ed version had level 3 spells, the 2nd ed could cast level 5 spells...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I got my start with AD&D 2E, and all I can say is that from my experience, 5E doesn't really have "ubiquitous magic" on a scale substantially greater than 2E did. I will concede that at-will cantrips increase the presence of magic at low levels, but I don't think that is the case at mid to high levels. Cantrips don't feel especially magical to me, however, I don't find that they detract from the magical feel of other spells and magic. Even at low levels, 5E casters don't have an appreciably larger number of spell slots. The usage of spells with levels tended to be higher in my 2E games overall.

It's probably more the case that magic doesn't affect gameplay more in 5E than in 2E, but in terms of setting, at-will cantrips make a world of difference. (Although, to be fair, most of the damage was done with the introduction of limited-slotless cantrips in late 2E or early 3E or whenever.)

Once you have magic that you can use without massively compromising your own survivability, it means you can show it off in towns, and it slowly becomes a world where a lot of people will have seen magic. And in 5E, all it takes is a single level 1 spellcaster to share that magic with everyone they come across. It does a lot to erode the mistrust and fear of the unknown that you would otherwise find among the muggle populace.

Of course, if anything was universal back in the AD&D days, it was that the experience varied from table to table. Maybe you had magic as known and accepted all along, in which case it wouldn't be much of a change for you.

 

[Ancalagon]

the "at will" cantrip also raises interesting questions about who else can do it besides classed PCs and NPCs. JoeBob the sleepy tavern bouncer who gets in a fight 2-3 times a year isn't a full-classed fighter, but he can still fight a little. So are there "0-level casters"? Like Mutak the Magnificient, who knows mending and prestidigitation and has a rat familiar (used a scroll to cast it) and who works for the local lord who just *has to* have a court wizard? Or Benet the Priest who blesses people using guidance? etc etc

These "not full casters but still there" spellcasters could really ramp up the "background magic" levels.

 

[CapnZapp]

You don't like teamwork, and you think everyone should be self-sufficient?

Or you think that saying "Hey, I'm going to heal the paladin instead of your barbarian because if I heal you then you're just going to immediately get yourself hurt again," is somehow a dread insult, and nobody should have any consequences for their actions?

No, I find it reprehensible to play the game because I want to teach lessons to the other players, because i want to control and improve their behavior, because I feel I play better than they do.

 

[CapnZapp]

There is no room in the party for characters who are too selfish or incompetent.

Yeah. I think this speaks for itself...

 

[S'mon]

Sure, but you need some incentive to keep going. Gaining *stuff* is still typically why one adventures instead of staying home and tending the farm.

I don't think I could reasonably put a group of players though any game that didn't level at least once a month (8-hour weekly sessions typically) without some kind of substantial rewards other than levels. Magic items are nice, but 5e puts the kibosh on how many you can really carry around and use, what else is there, wealth? Land? Titles? Sure you can carry a game forward with that, but eventually your adventurers aren't adventurers anymore. They're titled nobility with an incentive NOT to go adventuring.

I think that's fair enough - 32 hours is a lot of play; I typically see advancement around every 12-20 hours, or 3-5 4 hour sessions, as ideal.

I think my preference would be a distinct level-up every 3-5 sessions, but have the advancement be more incremental - a flatter power curve than in most D&D editions. 3e is the only edition with a really broken curve, but 4e gets wonky too if your campaign like mine stays in the same campaign area across the three tiers.